Shippiness

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 11184

Hi --

Kathleen Kelly MacMillan wrote:

> I don't think you'll get much opposition from the Good Ship R/H on
> this one.  (In fact, I think the one things the two ships can agree on
> is that we love Hermione and want to see her with the right guy-we
> just disagree over who the right guy for her is!)

I agree with most of the above.  But, you might want to poll your fellow
ship-mates, because I think you have some folks on board who pretty
actively dislike Hermione.  But, in general, I agree that the ships just
disagree about who is the "right guy" for Hermione.  :--)

> > Gosh, thanks. You're welcome to visit anytime...as long as you're
> nice to Ron. Denigration of Weasleys of any kind will not be tolerated
> on the Good Ship R/H. Violators of this rule shall be forced to walk
> the plank.
>
> And Penny replied:
> >Oh well. I guess I won't be allowed a friendly visit even since I
> don't
> believe Ron (or any Weasley) is perfect and therefore immune from
> criticism (any more than Harry or Hermione is).
>
> Now, Penny, play fair. J  I never said that criticizing Ron or any
> Weasley for that matter was wrong-we know he's not perfect!  But you
> know my pet peeve is the Ron-is-less-than-Harry (or anyone) argument,
> and I'm pulling rank as captain and banning that from our ship!
> Anyone who wants to have a Ron-bashing party is welcome to do it on
> their own liner.

I'm playing fair!  Honest!  Actually, I think I took "denigrate" to mean
"criticize."  Having just looked it up, it means more to "defame."  So,
okay, just to clarify  ... I can visit the Good Ship R/H without fear of
being forced to walk to the plank if I criticize Ron (or another
Weasley) as long as I don't cross the line into defamation?  I think I
might want a clear standard of defamation before boarding the Good Ship
R/H in any case.  <vbg>

> Penny again:
> >Well .... "burden of proof" is a legal term. Ahem. You all still
> haven't met your "burden of proof" to show that Hermione likes Ron
> back.
>
> Sigh. I thought we agreed on that at least, that Hermione's feelings
> are an unknown.  You haven't met the burden of proof to prove that she
> likes Harry either.  What I really meant by my original comment was
> that, in my experience at least, R/H-ers tend not to have the need to
> convert others that seems to accompany H/H-ism.  (no offense intended
> to anyone here of course!  It's just my observation)

I agree that Hermione's feelings are an unknown -- that's why neither
side has met their "burden of proof."  I've now forgotten (admittedly)
what triggered my original comment re: BOP, but rest assured, we are
still agreed that Hermione's feelings are the unknown in the equation.

Why are we back to the conversion stuff?  :--)  We H/H'ers just like to
have *our* views known (just like the R/H'ers I might add).  So, why is
it equated with "missionary converting zeal" when the H/H'ers include
analysis, but the R/H'ers can analyze all day long without getting that
tag?  <g>

> Penny again:
> >He no doubt appreciates the fact that it has been Hermione who was
> more
> >steadfastly loyal to him than Ron. And, he most definitely
> appreciates the help she gives him with summoning charms & the
> curses/spells for the 3rd Task.
>
> Oh really?  And what evidence is there of this?  One of the things
> that
> annoyed me most in GoF was Harry's lack of realization of Hermione's
> steadfast friendship.  The one perspective we do have in the books is
> Harry's, and I didn't see him thinking either of the things you have
> asserted.

Well, he might not have "thought" it out loud for the reader.  But, he
did say to Hermione, "Hermione, I need your help!  I need to learn how
to do summoning charms properly."  In other words, he knows she'll help
him -- he knows he can count on her.  Yes, it'd be nice if he told her
so, but I figure his actions (reliance on her when the going gets tough)
speaks for him in alot of ways.

> Penny said:
> > What I objected to in Trina's message was again relying strictly on
> evidence
> that suggests that Ron likes >Hermione & just transferring
> >reciprocal feelings to Hermione without really analyzing whether
> that's
> well-placed or not.
>
> And I object to using the Hermione-may-have-feelings-for-Harry
> argument as a basis for H/H for the same reason.  Harry may be boring
> to me right now, but he's a person too!  J

I use Herminone-may-have-feelings-for-Harry as a basis for FITD, not
necessarily H/H.  I think though that FITD would eventually play out as
H/H at some point later (or at least potentially).  But, my main point
is that I don't think Hermione likes Ron, which leaves R/H dead in the
water for the time being.  He might be able to persuade her otherwise
... but for now, my money is on the notion that her cap is set for
Harry.

> Does anyone think that H/V is really going to happen, or was it just a
> device to get Ron's feelings to the surface?

You really think Hermione agreed to go to the Yule Ball with Viktor to
try & get Ron to notice her?  <snorts with laughter>  Her actions at the
Ball speak differently.  IMO, she genuinely was pleased that someone had
noticed her as a girl, and I don't think she's the type person who would
go in for that sort of ploy.  I think she liked him well enough to go to
the Ball with him.  I do think she was a bit discomfited by the serious
nature of his feelings for her -- I think it was more than she was ready
for.  But, we don't know whether she visited him that summer yet or
not.  I don't think it has lasting potential, but I think Hermione was
genuine about her feelings for him (liked him well enough to get to know
him better & be his Yule Ball date).

> I, for one, am not "disquieted" by the idea of H/H; in fact, I think
> it's rather dull and too HGTG <grins at First Mate Mo>.  I never
> understood why H/H-ers think R/H is "the easy way out" or some such.

Okay, I'll bite.  What's HGTG?  :--)

I don't think R/H is the "easy way out."  I think it's a surface-text
interpretation, while the subtext fairly screams FITD to me.

> I have been trying to find a book I read right after I got married
> that
> postulated that there are 3 basic kinds of marriages: "Calm" (not the
> word the author used, but that was basically what he/she meant);
> "Volatile" (that I remember exactly); and "Dysfunctional".  This
> author's position was that only the third type was unhappy.  In the
> Calm type, the partners do just about anything to achieve consensus
> and very often are uncomfortable with conflict. In the Volatile type,
> the partners often fight and scream at one another, but then move on.
> In the Dysfunctional type, the screaming and fighting is about
> sabotaging each other, not getting things out ing the open.  I
> remember this well because my husband and I most definitaly fall into
> the second category and I felt it wasn't "right" somehow until I read
> that and realized that it works for us.  People in the first type
> would probably not feel comfortable
> with that, but that's okay.  Anyway, the point here is that R/H would
> definitely be the second type.  Maybe that's why it appeals to me.

I think this is definitely a big part of what separates the H/H types &
the R/H types.  I have a "Calm" marriage.  I cannot even fathom the
Volatile type.  Sure, I know people who fall into that category, and
although we always shake our heads & think they surely must be on the
precipice of divorce, it seems to work for some people.

R/H -- not definitely Volatile.  Might well disintegrate into
Dysfunction (just like Calm marriages could fall into Dysfunction for
different reasons).  :--)

Penny
otherwise known as Captain of the H/H Cruiseline


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]